Skip to main content
Our Work

Evaluation of the Use of Chemical Dispersants in Oil Spill Response

Completed

Topics

The decision to use dispersants on any given oil spill requires careful comparison of its health and environmental impacts compared to other available response options, including mechanical recovery, in situ burning and leaving the spill untreated. Based on an evaluation of domestic and international research and results of field and laboratory studies, this report concludes that dispersant application in some circumstances can be a useful tool in oil spill response.

About Past Events

Description

This study will assess the effects and efficacy of dispersants as an oil spill response tool through review and evaluation of domestic and international research reports and results, including both laboratory and field studies. The study will evaluate trade-offs associated with dispersant use, in part through use or review of net environmental benefit analyses conducted for past oil spills. This evaluation will include comparison of chemically dispersed oil with the fate and effects of untreated oil. As part of this study, the committee will review research on the use of dispersants during actual spills, both for surface and subsurface applications (e.g., the 2009 Montara oil spill off the Australian coast and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico) to assess the net benefit of dispersant use in these cases. Specifically, the study will:

1. Assess the state of our knowledge about dispersant effectiveness (including comparisons across a range of dispersant formulations) and the fate, including short- and long-term fate, of untreated oil (no chemical dispersant applied), chemical dispersants, and chemically dispersed oil and the influence of dispersants on deposition (including marine snow), biodegradation, and/or transport of oil;

2. Evaluate and summarize research on the acute and chronic (sub lethal) toxicity of chemical dispersant formulations of comparable efficacy, chemically dispersed oil, and untreated oil at realistic environmental exposure levels. This will include characterization of the relative risks to wildlife health of untreated oil and chemically dispersed oil, taking into consideration exposure to volatile compounds, ingestion, and absorption of naturally versus chemically dispersed droplets;

3. Compare the benefits and limitations of dispersant application to the use of other clean-up methods (e.g. no-action, mechanical recovery, burning, and chemical herders in combination with burning);

4. Compare the relative human health risks for the use of dispersants with the use of other clean-up methods (exposure of response personnel and residents in Gulf coastal communities to oil and dispersants, and contamination of seafood);

5. Identify the research protocols and standards that would: i) increase the applicability of lab-based measurements to the field and ii) improve the comparability of research findings from different laboratories;

6. Assess the adequacy of the existing information to support risk-based decision-making or net environmental benefit analysis of response options under a variety of spill scenarios and recommend a “roadmap” of research and modelling to address identified information gaps.

Contributors

Committee

Chair

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Download all bios

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Statement of Unavoidable Conflict of Interest: Dr. Thomas Coolbaugh

In accordance with Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the "Academy shall make its best efforts to ensure that no individual appointed to serve on [a] committee has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed, unless such conflict is promptly and publicly disclosed and the Academy determines that the conflict is unavoidable." A conflict of interest refers to an interest, ordinarily financial, of an individual that could be directly affected by the work of the committee. As specified in the Academy's policy and procedures (http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html), an objective determination is made for each provisionally appointed committee member whether or not a conflict of interest exists given the facts of the individual's financial and other interests and the task being undertaken by the committee. A determination of a conflict of interest for an individual is not an assessment of that individual's actual behavior or character or ability to act objectively despite the conflicting interest.

We have concluded that for this committee to accomplish the tasks for which it was established, its membership must include among others, at least one person who has current practical experience with and broad expertise in dispersant chemistry and oil spill response strategies in support of global oil and gas industry operations. To meet the need for this expertise and experience, Dr. Thomas Coolbaugh is proposed for appointment to the committee even though we have concluded that he has a conflict of interest in relation to his service on the committee because he is employed by ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company whose financial interests could be affected by the outcome of the study.

As described in his biographical summary, Dr. Coolbaugh has over 25 years of experience in scientific research and oil spill response strategies from the perspective of the oil and gas industry. Dr. Coolbaugh has a singular combination of expertise in the chemistry of dispersant-oil mixtures, risk assessment, and practical industry experience in aerial and subsea use of dispersants. We believe that Dr. Coolbaugh can serve effectively as a member of the committee and that the committee can produce an objective report, taking into account the composition of the committee, the work to be performed, and the procedures to be followed in completing the work.

After an extensive search, we have been unable to find another individual with the equivalent experience and technical expertise as Dr. Coolbaugh who does not have a similar conflict of interest. Therefore, we have concluded that this conflict is unavoidable.

Committee Membership Roster Comments

Additional public health expertise needed

Sponsors

EPA

Internal Funding

Other, Federal

Private: For Profit

Private: Non Profit

Staff

Susan Roberts

Lead

Constance Karras

Lead

More like this

Subscribe to Email from the National Academies
Keep up with all of the activities, publications, and events by subscribing to free updates by email.